John 3:14-16 teaches that Christ died for everyone

[FreeGrace2]

Prophecies Jesus - 44 Messianic Prophecies Jesus Fulfilled

Wow! Excellent resource, SayaOtonashi. Thank you very much!

 

[crimsonleaf]

If not the will, then there is no choice, is there. You're being dishonest to claim that man can choose but lacks the will. And there is no Scripture to back you up.

I can kill my self today, but I haven't got the will. According to you I don't have the choice. Brilliant. Your arguments are getting weaker and weaker. Perhaps you're losing the ability to reason.

If that were so, how come NONE of you has provided ANY verse that refutes what I believe, and you guys CANNOT provide ANY verse that actually SAYS what you believe?

We've done so repeatedly. Go and look.

How odd. That's exactly what y'all been doing to me since I got here; misrepresent my view and they try to knock it down.

Did you mean "then" try to knock them down? Typing too fast or poor grammar?

You brought the argument to us; we didn't seek you out.

So it looks like you've failed on all three of y'alls points.

 

[FreeGrace2]

I can kill my self today, but I haven't got the will.

Then you really don't have a choice, do you.

According to you I don't have the choice. Brilliant. Your arguments are getting weaker and weaker. Perhaps you're losing the ability to reason.

If you don't have the will, you can't do it. So a choice isn't even an issue. That is quite clear. But not to you, apparently.

Then I said this:

If that were so, how come NONE of you has provided ANY verse that refutes what I believe, and you guys CANNOT provide ANY verse that actually SAYS what you believe?

And you responded with this:
"We've done so repeatedly. Go and look." Really? Just "go and look"? How come you can't seem to plut your finger on anything that has occurred "so repeatedly"? Your claim here is full of hot air.

You brought the argument to us; we didn't seek you out.

That's correct. Where are any refutations?

Did you mean "then" try to knock them down? Typing too fast or poor grammar?

yep. Typing too fast.

So it looks like you've failed on all three of y'alls points.

There's only 1 of me, though it seems you might feel somewhat surrounded. I understand.

And, no, I haven't failed.

 

[crimsonleaf]

Then you really don't have a choice, do you.


If you don't have the will, you can't do it. So a choice isn't even an issue. That is quite clear. But not to you, apparently.

When my children were very small I had to teach them that just because they didn't want to do something, it didn't mean they couldn't do it. Have I got to treat you in the same way?

Suicide is a genuine choice for some people every day. Some wake up and their first thought is "Will today be the day when I end my life?" Those who choose to continue living do so by their own free will. If they desire to continue living then the choice doesn't go away - they've just made the choice. And which ever decision the freely make will be the will of God, either decretive or permissive.

Man has the choice to follow God's ways. His will is universally opposed to doing so. It doesn't remove the choice. Argue about it if you want, but if you do, you'll be wrong.

 

[Hammster]

When my children were very small I had to teach them that just because they didn't want to do something, it didn't mean they couldn't do it. Have I got to treat you in the same way?

Suicide is a genuine choice for some people every day. Some wake up and their first thought is "Will today be the day when I end my life?" Those who choose to continue living do so by their own free will. If they desire to continue living then the choice doesn't go away - they've just made the choice. And which ever decision the freely make will be the will of God, either decretive or permissive.

Man has the choice to follow God's ways. His will is universally opposed to doing so. It doesn't remove the choice. Argue about it if you want, but if you do, you'll be wrong.

He has a choice to not argue. But does he have the will?

 

[crimsonleaf]

He has a choice to not argue. But does he have the will?

Well, his latest argument seems to be if he doesn't have the will, then he doesn't have a choice.

I know, I lolled as well.

 

[Don Maurer]

How odd. That's exactly what y'all been doing to me since I got here; misrepresent my view and they try to knock it down.

Hedrick said

The question is whether God's grace is necessary to bring people to this faith.

FG2 answered Hedrick,

No, there isn't any question at all. God's grace is unlimited, unlike the so-called sovereign grace of the reformed, which was doled out ONLY to some.

Notice that Hedrick was speaking of "grace necessary to bring people to faith." That is grace before salvation, or a preceding grace.

FG2, replies with the standard arminian position denying that this grace is "doled out ONLY to some."

FG2, then later moves to the heretical Pelagian position of no grace being necessary for man to choose the good. Tell me again, which statement of yours is correct, your reply to Hedrick, or your later statement that there is no preceding grace?

Also can you repeat why the term "draw" does not mean "draw" in John 6:44? Your reply there was a real whopper.

which was doled out ONLY to some.
which was doled out ONLY to some.
which was doled out ONLY to some.
which was doled out ONLY to some.

Your not misrepresented. Your views are self-contradictory, you dodge issues, you have been dealt with.

 

[FreeGrace2]

He has a choice to not argue. But does he have the will?

Do you understand the meaning of "debate"? Doesn't seem so.

 

[FreeGrace2]

A boo... a hoo.... a boo hooo hoo.

Thanks for a good example of the "crying" of Calvinists that I told cl about.

FG2, then later moves to the heretical Pelagian position of no grace being necessary for man to choose the good.

I've never said that at all. In fact, I refuted that position in my explanation that God's grace has always been in operation, from the Garden of Eden, when He provided clothing for Adam and the woman, and then the solution (sacrifice) for Adam's rebellion, which effected the entire human race.

God created mankind to seek Him (Acts 17:26-27) which is grace. God revealed Himself to mankind so that no one has an excuse (Rom 1:19-20), which is also grace. Got it? His grace isn't "doled out" only to the elect, as you guys erroneously claim. AND, God's grace, brings salvation to everyone (Titus 2:11). Your theology severely restricts the grace of God. Shameful.

Tell me again, which statement of yours is correct, your reply to Hedrick, or your later statement that there is no preceding grace?

I've NEVER said there is "no preceding grace". I reject the phrase "prevenient grace", as it doesn't appear in Scripture. If there is a post by me saying what you claim, then I mistakenly typed in the wrong word. Just read what I've posted here for my view that God's grace has ALWAYS been in action. Maybe you will call that "prevenient grace". I don't care what you call it. I call it what the Bible calls it: GRACE. No adjectives. You Calvinists just love to hang silly adjectives on Biblical words.

Also can you repeat why the term "draw" does not mean "draw" in John 6:44? Your reply there was a real whopper.

Where did I ever say that? I know full well what 'helkuo' means and where it occurs in Scripture, including a verse in the LXX.

Your not misrepresented.

Well, as noted in this post, I've had to correct all of your claims about what you think and claim as my view. So, yes, my view has been misrepresented,and you are one of those who do it.

Your views are self-contradictory

I get that claim a lot, and when I ask for exactly what IS contradicted, no one seems able to come up with anything specific. Why is that? Can you?

you dodge issues

That's so ironic. I've charged you guys with playing dodgeball repeatedly. So don't throw that ridiculous charge at me. I've answered the questions, even the ridiculously stupid and irrelevant ones, that were asked only as a diversionistic tactic to change the subject when the Calvinist didn't want to face one of my questions.

you have been dealt with and now you just need to leave.

Oh, yeah, I've been "dealt with". Misrepresented, dodged, etc.

I'm sure y'all would love if I just left. Then all that pressure would be off y'all.

 

[FreeGrace2]

you have failed
1 you have convinced no one here,

You really think anyone can come here and convince extremely biased people of the truth????

2 you come crashing in like a bull in a china shop determined to bash your supposed to be brethren in Christ, insult, goad,twist turn, spin, spool ect

That would you own pitiful view of things. If my views and charges are so inaccurate and impotent, why do you see them as "a bull crashing in a china shop"? That's a very good visual to explain what happens when truth invades darkness.

3 the posters have refuted you time and time again most times very patiently I might add

I wish you had actually "added" the post #s regarding that so-called refutation. Claims are cheap. Proof gets the job done. You got any?

4 you can scream yell say you have dismantled till your blue in the face if you like it means nothing

How do you know whether I've "screamed/yelled"? Do you possess omniscience?

5 as far as I know this is the only part of the forum that has a debate section says a lot for the posters on here go try to dismantle any other part of say wof or the liberal forum see how fast they throw you out

So other posters really have the ability to "throw out" other posters? Wow. So how come you guys don't have that kind of power?

 

[nobdysfool]

You really think anyone can come here and convince extremely biased people of the truth????

Says someone who is even more extremely biased. Apparently you believe that you were given some sort of mandate to come in here and act like a bully. And please notice, i used the word "apparently", which identifies it as "the view from where I sit", and as such is not a misrepresentation of you or your view.

That would you own pitiful view of things. If my views and charges are so inaccurate and impotent, why do you see them as "a bull crashing in a china shop"? That's a very good visual to explain what happens when truth invades darkness.

Perfect example of using pejoratives to guide the impressionable. "Pitiful"

I wish you had actually "added" the post #s regarding that so-called refutation. Claims are cheap. Proof gets the job done. You got any?

This from the guy who counts his opinions as facts above reproach, and demands that the Calvinists waste their time disproving negatives.

How do you know whether I've "screamed/yelled"? Do you possess omniscience?

We don't. And you don't know that the Calvinists have cried or whined either. Get over yourself!

So other posters really have the ability to "throw out" other posters? Wow. So how come you guys don't have that kind of power?

"Pride goeth before a fall, and haughty spirit before stumbling....."

 

[crimsonleaf]

Do you know WHY? They have the WILL to do it. If you don't have the will to do something, you ain't gonna choose it. Period. Wake up.

You wake up. Here's a little secret for you: the people who wake up feeling suicidal and have the will to do it kill themselves. But whether they have the will or not, they always have the choice. Only somebody who has no grasp of language could possibly fail to see that choice exists regardless of will.

And those who choose to end their life also do so by their own free will. What is your point?

I'll help you because I know you have difficulty holding a thought from post to post.

You claim that without will, choice doesn't exist. I'm claiming it does. Keep up.

The only time a choice "goes away" is when it isn't available to choose.

Brilliant. You're finally catching up.

Only in your theology of robotic/puppetry. Your statement is contradictory.

Resorting to the puppet/robot charge is so... Elman. Usually the sign of an impending unraveling.

Not in your view. God "decrees" all of man's actions, so there is NO choice at all. Even though you keep saying so.

I forget that you haven't done the necessary homework to debate the hard stuff. Go away and learn.

Thank you for your opinion.

Believe me, it was my pleasure.

 

[Don Maurer]

Not in your view. God "decrees" all of man's actions, so there is NO choice at all. Even though you keep saying so.

Wow, FG2 always astonishes me with outright denials of obvious truths. If there is no "choice" when God decrees, and all men have choice, then God decrees nothing? God just starts creation and then sits back to see where it is going? How is this different than the heresy called "Open Theism?"

 

[crimsonleaf]

God created mankind to seek Him (Acts 17:26-27) which is grace. God revealed Himself to mankind so that no one has an excuse (Rom 1:19-20), which is also grace. Got it? His grace isn't "doled out" only to the elect, as you guys erroneously claim. AND, God's grace, brings salvation to everyone (Titus 2:11). Your theology severely restricts the grace of God. Shameful.


I've NEVER said there is "no preceding grace". I reject the phrase "prevenient grace", as it doesn't appear in Scripture. If there is a post by me saying what you claim, then I mistakenly typed in the wrong word. Just read what I've posted here for my view that God's grace has ALWAYS been in action. Maybe you will call that "prevenient grace". I don't care what you call it. I call it what the Bible calls it: GRACE. No adjectives. You Calvinists just love to hang silly adjectives on Biblical words.

Answer this. If men are corrupt following the sin of Adam, and God grants a universal grace to all men, give me one example of a man whose nature is actually changed by the fall, bearing in mind that God corrected the defect with his universal grace.

I get that claim a lot, and when I ask for exactly what IS contradicted, no one seems able to come up with anything specific. Why is that? Can you?

The reason you get it a lot is that you do it a lot.

In another thread I posted this, which you ignored: "It is irrational to say in one breath that a man is saved even if he subsequently disbelieves, then in the next breath deny saying anything like it, and finally to revert back to plan A again a few posts later. All there in black and white, making you look less skilled than your ego tells you you are".

Directly caught in contradiction and you still claim we've never done it.

 

[Hammster]

Preceding grace = good.
Prevenient grace = not biblical.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Preceding grace = good.
Prevenient grace = not biblical.

Why not just grace? What's wrong with saying just what the Bible says?

 

[Don Maurer]

...........I've NEVER said there is "no preceding grace". I reject the phrase "prevenient grace", as it doesn't appear in Scripture........

You obtusify things merely to create a smoke screen when you do not understand what is being said. It is a disappointingly shallow thing to do. It makes you look really really bad.

The term "preceding grace" does not appear in scripture, and neither does the term "prevenient grace." Also, the two terms are synonyms. We also use the term "trinity," Premillenial, Amillenial, or PostMil, to discrible certain aspects of theology, neither are they found in the scriptures. This obtusification and smoke screen is an attempt to cover over a very shallow mind that cannot grasp concepts in the theology of the bible. You level of great ignorance is rather disappointing.

If there is a post by me saying what you claim, then I mistakenly typed in the wrong word. Just read what I've posted here for my view that God's grace has ALWAYS been in action. Maybe you will call that "prevenient grace". I don't care what you call it. I call it what the Bible calls it: GRACE. No adjectives. You Calvinists just love to hang silly adjectives on Biblical words.

Actually, I am not aware of any passage anywhere in the bible that uses the term "grace" with the phrase "preceding grace." If you cannot learn the language, you will not grasp the concepts. Would you prefer using the term "drawing?" That is a biblical term. It would be a good discussion to discuss John 6:44 and the drawing in that passage?

Where did I ever say that? I know full well what 'helkuo' means and where it occurs in Scripture, including a verse in the LXX.

Well, I am not sure what you are referring to here. The word "ελκυση," what passage in the LXX are you referring to? I am guessing that you are referring to the OT quote in verse 45. I did not look it up in the LXX, but verse 45 only reinforces the teaching of verse 44 that after experiencing the "draw" anyone who has been drawn will be "raised up on the last day" to eternal life.

So then, it would be nice to see the LXX and we can look at verse 45 and how that supports the fact that anyone drawn is raised up on the last day to eternal life.

Now I guess you could say that men can still resist that drawning in vese 44, but since the end result is being raise up on the last day to eternal life, the point of resistance is what? Meaningless.

So then, while you deny universal justification, all those drawn are justified and saved.

This reading of John 6:44 is supported by the context....
37 All that which the Father giveth me shall come unto me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.
The Father gives some to the Son. Out of those the Father gives to the Son, please tell me (I am afraid you will not answer this question, please answer it.) Please tell me out of those the Father gave the Son, how many "come unto me"
A--- Some will come to me
B--- A few will come to me
C--- Most will come to me
D--- Each and every one given by the Father will come to the Son.

Then notice the language at the beginning of verse 44.
44 No man can come to me........

In light of the beginning of verse 44, we need to explain how men come to Christ. That is the "prevenient grace" or the "preceding grace" or the "Drawing." Out of those "drawn" how many come to Christ? Verse 37 is clear, all of them given will come. Verse 44 is clear, they will all be "raised up" to eternal life. Then verse 45 adds OT support that "Every one that hath heard from the Father, and hath learned, cometh unto me" (ASV). So then, verse 45 supports the idea that "everyone" who hears and learns cometh unto me. At the end of verse 45, the phrase "cometh unto me." Again, in verse 45 it is all those drawn, cometh unto me.

The obvious conclusion is that this drawing never fails. If it never fails, God is not drawing unbelievers because then it fails. If he draws unbeleivers and they never believe, why is there this constant drumbeat in the text that "all" cometh unto me" (45) or "and I will raise him up on the last day (44) or "All that which the Father giveth me shall come unto me" (37).

The passage just keeps the same hammer beat up... "They come" "All come" "They come." They all get everlasting life.

Show me somewhere in the passage where they do not "all come." Please do not just ignore all this typing I am doing and just throw up yet another smoke screen. Please address the text.

Well, as noted in this post, I've had to correct all of your claims about what you think and claim as my view. So, yes, my view has been misrepresented,and you are one of those who do it.

No, I did not misrepresent you. You love all these charges of misrepresentation and all these accusations because it throws up a smoke screen and keeps people out of the text. Come on FG2, be a little bit of a Christian and lets go to the text. Enough of the smoke screen.

I get that claim a lot, and when I ask for exactly what IS contradicted, no one seems able to come up with anything specific. Why is that? Can you?

To the text, no more smoke screen.

That's so ironic. I've charged you guys with playing dodgeball repeatedly. So don't throw that ridiculous charge at me. I've answered the questions, even the ridiculously stupid and irrelevant ones, that were asked only as a diversionistic tactic to change the subject when the Calvinist didn't want to face one of my questions.

To the text, enough of the smoke screen.

Oh, yeah, I've been "dealt with". Misrepresented, dodged, etc.

I'm sure y'all would love if I just left. Then all that pressure would be off y'all.

Yeah, I do think you should leave. You did say one thing that was right. I am being drug down to your low level by your constant smoke screen.

You want to argue over the terms used (prevenient grace) and complain that that you do not believe in prevenient grace because the term is not in the bible. Then you say you believe in preceding grace but that term is not in the bible either. You argue mainly about words and accusations and all sorts of nonsense.

Your right about one thing, I would rather you leave and go away than to continue that nonsense. Please do more than mention some word in John 6:44 and say you know all about drawing and its LXX background. Do some actual work in the text. Please stop the smoke screen or go away.

 

[Hammster]

Why not just grace? What's wrong with saying just what the Bible says?

Well, if grace proceeds regeneration, then there's nothing wrong with using terms. It's just a way of describing things. There's nothing wrong with that.

 

[nobdysfool]

This is totally dishonest. Calvinism believes that unless one is chosen, they CANNOT believe. It can't be an issue of what they choose, but rather who God chooses. Why aren't you admitting that, and speaking about something that isn't even possible in your own theology?

Actually YOU are being dishonest here. You have been told time and time again that Calvinists believe that man has the ability to believe, but if they are unregenerate they have no desire, or inclination to believe the Gospel and therefore don't, and won't. THAT is Calvinist theology, FG2. What you are claiming that Calvinists believe is a falsehood, and to continue to claim it, after having been repeatedly corrected shows that you would rather believe a lie than the Truth.

Have you parsed the verse? I suggest it BEFORE you place foot in mouth.

He did, we have, and you're wrong. Period.

Loose translation very similar to what Peter said about Paul: "15and regard the patience of our Lord as salvation; just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you, 16as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction."

which has absolutelty nothing to do with what is being discussed here, regarding 1John5:1.

How come so many Calvinists say that one must be regenerated in order to believe? And that Cornelius was regenerated BEFORE Peter arrived, gave the gospel, he believed and was saved?

Because it is logically the Truth!

How can I "raise the bar" when dealing with you guys?

You could start by showing some respect and common courtesy, by not stringing together negative pejorative adjectives when referring to us and our beliefs, and also by stopping the misrepresentation of our beliefs. You have been corrected enough times that you cannot claim ignorance.

OK, back that up with some evidence, if you can. All you guys can throw all the incendiary untruths all you want, but you cannot prove any of them.

i don't care what anyone says, that's a hilarious statement, coming from you....

All it says is that those who presently believe have been born again. Nothing about being born again causing anything. That's just your fantasy.

Those who ARE (present tense) believing HAVE BEEN (past tense) born again. Chronologically and logically, born again happened before the believing, and the believing was a result of being born again. No fantasy involved. You are willfully refusing to see what is plain to anyone who can read. That is YOUR problem, not ours.

 

[guuila]

Actually YOU are being dishonest here. You have been told time and time again that Calvinists believe that man has the ability to believe, but if they are unregenerate they have no desire, or inclination to believe the Gospel and therefore don't, and won't. THAT is Calvinist theology, FG2. What you are claiming that Calvinists believe is a falsehood, and to continue to claim it, after having been repeatedly corrected shows that you would rather believe a lie than the Truth.

Does FreeGrace2 think the non-elect have the ability to believe or something?

This issue is very nuanced and is never productive when the anti-reformed person refuses to see what we're saying. What it comes down to is unregenerate man does not have the ability to desire God because he is a slave to sin through and through. Unregenerate man's entire being is infected by sin, which includes the desires of his heart. That is why man is unable to believe, because he is unable to desire to believe. It's a moral inability, not a natural inability. It's not as though unregenerate man wants to believe, but somehow God is keeping him from it. You can walk up to any atheist and tell them they will always hate the Gospel until God regenerates them, and they won't be bothered a bit. They will laugh. They don't care. They hate the thought of actually loving Jesus.

Any desire for God is a result of God's drawing, effectual grace, and this is the very thing our synergist brothers are arguing against. They prefer their desire for God be something they independently did after receiving some sort of common grace given to everyone, even those who reject the Gospel.